You're ignorance isn't my issue. You continue to support bandaids. It is, after all, the very foundation of liberal thinking. Solving the problem is a real solution. Yet, you and your kind support and propose bandaids and make us suffer. The solution is provide cheaper and more plentiful power/energy. The solution is Nuke plants. No new Nuke plants have been designed and created since the 70s. Top scientists have agreed we could create them 1000 times safer than ever before and they would produce buttloads more power. Problem solved....and all without placing remote controls on your energy useage controlled by the government. Village idiot? I feel sad for you.
Times OnlineJanuary 10, 2008
First new nuclear power plant 'will be completed before 2020'
(Lefteris Pitarakis/AP)
The Sizewell nuclear power plant: the Government says the new generation of plants makes environmental and commercial sense
Jenny Booth
Read Red Box: Sam Coates's blog
The Government today gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power plants, provoking a sharply polarised response from the supporters and opponents of nuclear energy.
Announcing the plans in Parliament, John Hutton, the Business Secretary, said that the proposals made sound commercial and environmental sense, and hoped that the first new nuclear power station would be completed well before 2020.
But while business and union leaders praised the announcement as good for the economy, Greenpeace condemned it as short-sighted and threatened to launch fresh legal action.
In his statement to the Commons, Mr Hutton said that Britain needed nuclear energy to help it meet its two energy challenges, of making sure Britain had secure and affordable supplies of power at a time of global instability, and of tackling climate change.
He suggested that it would not be costly for the taxpayer, stressing that it would be for the energy companies to fund, develop and build the new plants, including meeting the full costs of decommissioning and "their full share" of waste management costs.
"Giving the go ahead today that new nuclear power should play a role in providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country’s vital long term interest," he told MPs in a Commons statement.
"Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this important part of our energy policy.
"I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations."
Mr Hutton said that the Government had not forgotten alternative energy sources, and both nuclear and renewable energy sources would play their part.
He also published an Energy Bill which includes measures to promote greater use of renewable energy and of carbon capture and storage technology, which ministers said had the potential to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel power stations by up to 90 per cent. The Bill will also enable investment in new offshore gas infrastructure projects.
Nuclear power already provides around 19 per cent of the UK's electricity, but most of the country's nuclear power stations are due to come out of service within 15 years.
Mr Hutton said that nuclear technology had proved itself over the last half century as safe, and reliable enough to provide "baseload" electricity.
"Every new nuclear power station will save the same amount of carbon emissions that are generated from around one million households," he told MPs.
"The entire lifecycle emissions of nuclear - that’s from uranium mining through to waste management - are only between 2 and 6 per cent of those from gas for every unit of electricity generated.
"Nuclear power will reduce the costs of meeting our energy goals. "
Mr Hutton said that some people had argued that a permanent solution for dealing with existing nuclear waste must be developed before new waste was created, but in the Government's view burying the waste in concrete deep underground was an adequate solution for now.
"Having fully considered the evidence, our conclusion is that geological disposal is both technically possible and the right approach for managing existing and new higher activity waste.
"It will be many years before a disposal facility is built. But we are satisfied that interim storage will hold waste from existing and any new power stations safely and securely for as long as is necessary."
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, accused Mr Hutton of being evasive about the true cost of nuclear power.
"Even if energy companies could run them without taxpayers’ money, consumers would just end up paying for them through higher fuel bills," said Mr Clegg.
"The Government should abandon these expensive white elephants and focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of genuinely renewable technologies."
But Alan Duncan, the Shadow Business Secretary, said that the Conservatives were in favour of nuclear power – with provisos – and would co-operate with the Government on developing energy policy. "There’s never been a more pressing time for responsible policy-making," he said.
"Carbon emissions are changing our climate, we are paying $100 for oil, and we are facing a clear and massive energy shortfall. It is our duty to set aside political scrapping so as to make sure we do what’s right for our country."
Mr Hutton's announcement was greeted with relief by business leaders, who said that nuclear power was essential for British businesses to stay competitive.
Richard Lambert, the director general of the CBI, said: "After much consultation, the Government has reached the right conclusion.
"Nuclear is not the only answer - more renewables and clean coal will also be needed - and today’s Energy Bill provides the framework for a diverse energy mix. But nuclear’s proven ability to generate low carbon electricity means it can play a valuable role."
Areva, a French utilities company, indicated that it was interested in building six nuclear power plants in Britain capable of generating 15 per cent of the UK's electricity, at a cost of £13.4 billion.
Two large unions, the GMB and Unite came out in favour of the plans. Dougie Rooney, Unite national officer, said: "The Government has consulted the union fully and comprehensively on this issue and we pledge to support them in any challenge that may come from Greenpeace.
"We would like to see the Government set out a bolder vision with clear deadlines to enable companies to plan for new nuclear reactors."
But Greenpeace lambasted the Government, accusing it of evasions and incompetence. John Sauven, the protest group's executive director, said: "This is bad news for Britain’s energy security and bad news for our efforts to beat climate change.
"When you look closely at what Hutton said, the radioactive waste problem is still the roadblock to new nuclear power.
"When you look behind the smoke and mirrors of this announcement you very quickly see this Government still has no idea what it’s doing. Its energy policy is still a shambles."
Greenpeace won a High Court ruling last year after complaining that the Government’s consultation process was flawed. The group has threatened fresh action, although lawyers say that it is unlikely to succeed in halting the Government's nuclear programme with a second legal challenge.
Rob Pitcher, partner and head of Eversheds’ nuclear group said: "It seems very likely that there will be a further NGO challenge to the consultation process, however we believe that the NGOs do not have a case this time around as the consultation exercise seems to have met the legal requirements to avoid a successful outcome to a judicial review for the NGOs."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 164191.ece
Britain is getting it.
************
A great site for infoz.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Introduction
An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.
This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.
MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON "THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY"
Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions
for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases
July 29, 2003
Washington, D.C. – A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy."
The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power."
"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."
But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.
The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in mid-century, keeping nuclear's share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in mid-century. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.
"There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels," said Dr. Moniz. "But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power"
The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:
Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;
Offering a limited production tax-credit to 'first movers' - private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;
Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;
Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.
Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.
The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration..
The members of the study team are: John Deutch (co-chair), Ernest Moniz (co-chair), S. Ansolabehere, Michael Driscoll, Paul Gray, John Holdren (Harvard), Paul Joskow, Richard Lester, and Neil Todreas.
Members of the Advisory Committee included: former U.S. Congressman Phil Sharp (chair), former White House Chiefs of Staff John Podesta and John Sununu, John Ahearne, Tom Cochran, Linn Draper, Ted Greenwood, John MacWilliams, Jessica Mathews, Zack Pate, and Mason Willrich.
This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.
Plenty of great non-carbon emmission shit in there for you global warming nutjobs.
Have a nice night.
